Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 3

Recommendation 90: Reorganize Title 10 of the U.S. Code to place all of the 

acquisition provisions in a single part, and update and move acquisition-related 

note sections into the reorganized acquisition part of Title 10.

Problem

Congress, in establishing the Section 809 Panel, directed it to “make any recommendations for the 

amendment or repeal of such regulations that the panel considers necessary” to streamline defense 

acquisition.As the panel began its research, it became apparent that restricting its purview to defense 

acquisition regulations was too narrow. Regulatory implementation is often directed by statutes. 

Amending, or in some cases repealing, certain defense acquisition statutes is necessary to effectively 

streamline defense acquisition and provide greater transparency in its processes. Congress 

acknowledged this situation in subsequent amendments to the Section 809 Panel mandate. 

Defense acquisition statutes are codified in Title 10 of the U.S. Code; however, over the years, those 

statutes have become increasingly disorganized, making it difficult for even the most experienced user 

to sort through the Code. Acquisition reform has become a perennially popular legislative effort, with 

Congress enacting no less than 265 acquisition-related provisions in the past three NDAAs. Few people 

know how to sort through the cluttered Code to find those legislative provisions that often end up as 

notes within the Code. 

The acquisition-related statutes that apply to the rest of the federal government were recently

organized and codified in Title 41. No similar effort has been made with regard to Title 10, where the 

organization of the acquisition-related statutes has become problematic. The work of the Section 809 

Panel provides an opportunity to bring those defense acquisition statutes into a cohesive organized 

structure for the long-term benefit of the acquisition community and those companies doing business 

with DoD or are seeking to enter the DoD marketplace.

Background

When Title 10 was codified in 1956, the drafters did not anticipate where the growth would take place. 

Part IV of Subtitle A, Service, Supply, and Procurement, houses most of the acquisition statutes – the 

house is now full and in disarray. As the Packard Commission noted in 1986:

... the legal regime for defense acquisition is today impossibly cumbersome. . . .At operating levels within 

DOD, it is now virtually impossible to assimilate new legislative or regulatory refinements promptly or 

effectively. For these reasons we recommend that Congress work with the Administration to recodify

Federal laws governing procurement into a single consistent and greatly simplified procurement statute.1

The Section 800 Panel (established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1991, Pub. L. 101-510) made a similar finding and recommendation in its January 1993 report to 

Congress, Streamlining Defense Acquisition Laws. Nothing has changed since those findings and 

recommendations were made. Lasting positive effects of ongoing reform efforts, like those the Section 

 

1 A Quest for Excellence: Final Report by the President’s Commission on Defense Management 55 (June 1986)
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 3

809 Panel is recommending throughout its reports, will be limited without a coherent, organized, and 

transparent structure in which to integrate the resultant legislative changes.

Discussion

Not since the passage of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 have all the provisions governing 

DoD acquisition been contained within an organized, logical structure. Over the last 60 years, Congress 

overloaded Part IV of Subtitle A, adding section after section to the Code. Furthermore, Congress has 

added myriad note sections as it enacted long-term or permanent provisions without amending the 

Code. A note is a provision of law from the annual defense authorization acts or other statutes, which 

for different reasons are not set forth in the Code as numbered sections. Instead, the editors of the 

U.S. Code set out the note following a Code section.

The number of note sections has ballooned over time as Congress authorized short-term pilot programs 

and reporting requirements that all needed homes somewhere within the Code. Some more permanent 

provisions of law—enacted through the annual defense authorization acts—have also been buried as 

note sections under existing sections of the law. 

A miniscule number of specialized attorneys and policy makers inside and outside of DoD understand 

what these notes mean and where they are located. Few attorneys even recognize that the notes are 

indeed law, just like the section of the Code to which they are appended.

In its Volume 2 Report, the Section 809 Panel proposed a rational, statutory structure to replace the 

confusion and clutter resulting from the Code’s buried note sections and rambling organization. It also 

recommended repeal of approximately 100 note sections that were either obsolete or expired, as well as 

three Title 10 provisions. The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Pub. L. No. 115–232) adopted a large portion of those repeal recommendations. More significantly, the 

McCain NDAA recognized the panel’s reorganization effort, by creating a new Part V within Subtitle 

A, General Military Matters. To provide room for additional provisions in the new Part V, elements of 

the Code immediately following the current Part IV will be renumbered.

Redesignation is necessary because there is no more room in Subtitle A, evidenced by the proliferation 

of note sections and the invention of a baroque numbering system (e.g., 2366a, 2371b, 2374a, and even 

2410s). As discussed in Volume 2 of the panel’s report, note sections that should remain on the books 

will be codified as new Title 10 sections under a logical and intuitive revised chapter structure. The 

redesignation will provide additional room for Congress to reorganize or consolidate statutes related to 

other topics of general military application. 

The task of restructuring these statutes requires a substantial effort. Though the intent of this project is 

not to make any substantive changes to the legislative language, it will include breaking up some long 

sections of the Code into more manageable sections and making technical updates. Another feature of 

the restructuring is to work toward a final product that, where practicable, will restore much of the 

parallelism with Title 41, the acquisition statutes applicable to nondefense agencies that existed before 

Title 41 was codified. 

The Section 809 Panel began the restructuring task, and drafted a number of proposed chapters for 

inclusion in the newly created Part V in Subtitle A of Title 10. These proposed chapters are being 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 3

transmitted periodically to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees as well as to DoD. 

A table of the completed draft chapters (as of December 31, 2018) is included in in the Implementation 

Details for this section. This table identifies the new proposed section number as well as the original 

section number for each Title 10 section, and for the note sections, the Title 10 section under which the 

note originally was located (as well as the public law number). This table is intended to facilitate 

tracking of the defense acquisition provisions across the old and the new structures. Once the entire 

project is completed, via enactment in a single or multiple NDAAs, Congress should publish a 

comprehensive table that identifies the original section numbers and corresponding new section 

numbers in the new Part V of Title 10. A similar table was published following the reorganization and 

codification of Title 41 statutes. 

In the future, companies that already do business with other federal agencies will encounter a more 

readable statutory framework when they seek to do business with DoD. More importantly, greater 

transparency into the laws that govern transacting business with DoD may reduce a barrier into the 

defense market for innovative small businesses and nontraditional companies. 

The mission of the acquisition system is complex, and the stakes are high. DoD must be able to deliver 

lethality to the warfighter inside the turn of our near peer competitors and nonstate actors. Too often, 

the practice of defense acquisition and federal procurement is perceived as more complex than its 

mission, obscured by onerous requirements and shrouded in secrecy. The current lack of organization 

and structure in the laws governing acquisition seems to confirm this perception.

Conclusions

The tools that support the defense acquisition system need to be simple and effective, not burdensome 

and confusing. Reorganizing Title 10 would help restore agility and simplicity to defense acquisition. 

Simplifying the governing body of law is key to creating a system that is more transparent and 

accessible—and thus better able to meet DoD’s mission. 

Implementation

Legislative Branch

§ Reorganize all acquisition provisions into a new Part V at the end of Subtitle A of Title 10, 

U.S. Code.

§ Update and move acquisition related note sections into the new acquisition structure within 

Part V of Title 10, U.S. Code.

Executive Branch

§ There are no regulatory changes required for this recommendation.

Implications for Other Agencies

§ There are no cross-agency implications for this recommendation.